They did update it in the latest OS release. Now you can't properly delete Android apps! [Facepalm]

Hopefully they will at least 'update' it to fix this rather terrible bug. It can be fixed manually but not every user would know how and / or even know what the problem is to begin with until they run into it.

The near-consensus is that this would not be permitted under OHA rules.

.

BlackBerry can be induced to change their mind but if this is true then it is indeed a bit of a lost cause. So they can continue to support it and issue fixes for it but they can't make any major changes to it or update it? OHA sounds like a . Where's the antitrust legislation when you need it?

Last edited by Superfly_FR; 01-14-16 at 04:52 AM.
Reason: Please DO NOT bypass language filter.

We keep hearing about the OHA rules and how BlackBerry is restricted by this or by that. I'm just wondering if there is anything OFFICIAL about BlackBerry's position in all of this? Do we know for a fact that they are a member of the OHA? Doesn't that also mean that any of their apps should also be non-proprietary? How does that work?

We keep hearing about the OHA rules and how BlackBerry is restricted by this or by that. I'm just wondering if there is anything OFFICIAL about BlackBerry's position in all of this? Do we know for a fact that they are a member of the OHA? Doesn't that also mean that any of their apps should also be non-proprietary? How does that work?

While Google is out to devalue the open source codebase as much as possible, controlling the app side of the equation isn't the company's only power play.

If a company does ever manage to fork AOSP, clone the Google apps, and create a viable competitor to Google's Android, it's going to have a hard time getting anyone to build a device for it. In an open market, it would be as easy as calling up an Android OEM and convincing them to switch, but Google is out to make life a little more difficult than that. Google's real power in mobile comes from control of the Google appsmainly Gmail, Maps, Google Now, Hangouts, YouTube, and the Play Store. These are Android's killer apps, and the big (and small) manufacturers want these apps on their phones. Since these apps are not open source, they need to be licensed from Google. It is at this point that you start picturing a scene out of The Godfather, because these apps aren't going to come without some requirements attached.

While it might not be an official requirement, being granted a Google apps license will go a whole lot easier if you join the Open Handset Alliance. The OHA is a group of companies committed to AndroidGoogle's Androidand members are contractually prohibited from building non-Google approved devices. That's right, joining the OHA requires a company to sign its life away and promise to not build a device that runs a competing Android fork.

Acer was bit by this requirement when it tried to build devices that ran Alibaba's Aliyun OS in China. Aliyun is an Android fork, and when Google got wind of it, Acer was told to shut the project down or lose its access to Google apps. Google even made a public blog post about it:

While Android remains free for anyone to use as they would like, only Android compatible devices benefit from the full Android ecosystem. By joining the Open Handset Alliance, each member contributes to and builds one Android platformnot a bunch of incompatible versions.
This makes life extremely difficult for the only company brazen enough to sell an Android fork in the west: Amazon. Since the Kindle OS counts as an incompatible version of Android, no major OEM is allowed to produce the Kindle Fire for Amazon. So when Amazon goes shopping for a manufacturer for its next tablet, it has to immediately cross Acer, Asus, Dell, Foxconn, Fujitsu, HTC, Huawei, Kyocera, Lenovo, LG, Motorola, NEC, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba, and ZTE off the list. Currently, Amazon contracts Kindle manufacturing out to Quanta Computer, a company primarily known for making laptops. Amazon probably doesn't have many other choices.

For OEMs, this means they aren't allowed to slowly transition from Google's Android to a fork. The second they ship one device that runs a competing fork, they are given the kiss of death and booted out of the Android familyit must be a clean break. This, by design, makes switching to forked Android a terrifying prospect to any established Android OEM. You must jump off the Google cliff, and there's no going back.

Any OEM hoping to license Google Apps will need to pass Google's "compatibility" tests in order to be eligible. Compatibility ensures that all the apps in the Play Store will run on your device. And to Google, "compatibility" is also a fluid concept that an Android engineer once internally described as "a club to make [OEMs] do what we want." While Google now has automated tools that will test your device's "compatibility," getting a Google apps license still requires a company to privately e-mail Google and "kiss the ring" so to speak. Most of this is done through backroom agreements and secret contracts, so the majority of the information we have comes from public spats and/or lawsuits between Google and potential Android deserters (see: Acer).

Another point of control is that the Google apps are all licensed as a single bundle. So if you want Gmail and Maps, you also need to take Google Play Services, Google+, and whatever else Google feels like adding to the package. A company called Skyhook found this out the hard way when it tried to develop a competing location service for Android. Switching to Skyhook's service meant Google would not be able to collect location data from users. This was bad for Google, so Skyhook was declared "incompatible." OEMs that wanted the Google Apps were not allowed to use them. Skyhook sued, and the lawsuit is still pending.

Unfortunately, the OHA's member list is woefully out of date (Motorola, The Astonishing Tribe, etc), but one can reasonably assume that BlackBerry is privy to this cloak and dagger business.

We keep hearing about the OHA rules and how BlackBerry is restricted by this or by that. I'm just wondering if there is anything OFFICIAL about BlackBerry's position in all of this? Do we know for a fact that they are a member of the OHA? Doesn't that also mean that any of their apps should also be non-proprietary? How does that work?

The problem is that the full OHA regulations are not published for public consumption.

What we know is a combination of bits and pieces found here and there, along with jurisprudence from other legal actions.

Edit: Thurask has copied one of these bits and pieces above as I was typing this.

Whether you are a member of not, you have to sign off in order to get access to Google Play Services.

holy ****, Google is evil. why would i ever want to support that? it's not as if app developer are sanctioned against putting their apps on Amazon's store, or even a more neutral open storefront (really, there should be a better app store than Google's). i find Amazon to be evil too.

i'm trying to think of what Google services are really necessary, and Maps is the only one i can think of. what a mess.

I remember reading about how Colonel Saunders, if he got a KFC restaurant that wasn't up to snuff, would go in and repossess their cooking pots that he had supplied. Apparently it wasn't just the spice mix, it was also special pots that were needed. Not pots, no fried chicken.

holy ****, Google is evil. why would i ever want to support that? it's not as if app developer are sanctioned against putting their apps on Amazon's store, or even a more neutral open storefront (really, there should be a better app store than Google's). i find Amazon to be evil too.

i'm trying to think of what Google services are really necessary, and Maps is the only one i can think of. what a mess.

Yup, and people keep supporting them becz snapchat and appz, 'yo!

Christ almighty, they make it seem like competition is a bad thing for the consumer. What makes zero sense here is that you'd end up with MORE people using Google services if there were other devices permitted to run them than if you simply locked it to iOS and Android.

Could you imagine the uproar if Google pulled the plug on Play Services for iOS?

Christ almighty, they make it seem like competition is a bad thing for the consumer. What makes zero sense here is that you'd end up with MORE people using Google services if there were other devices permitted to run them than if you simply locked it to iOS and Android.

Could you imagine the uproar if Google pulled the plug on Play Services for iOS?

The problem is if they allow Google Play Services to run on all of the various forks of Android (and there would be even more if they did), they would now have to be held responsible to both its Play Store customers and developers to make sure all of the apps work on all of these platforms that aren't running proper Android. It would be chaos. The objective is to defragment Android.

The other issue is about allowing a manufacturer to run a fork at all. If they have a deal to offer Google Apps to company X, they don't want that same company X to have a competing product. Understandably, Google does not want to actively ASSIST a company to willfully compete against it. If you choose not to support Google Apps, then that's fine and it's company X's prerogative. Company X can't have it both ways though.